The Ancient Art of Cat-Fu

> I told you at that time that we had to see some progress from you in the form of a schematic. I even put you in touch with my layout person, who took on this project in the midst of doing other paying gigs because I promised him that you would provide the schematic and that he could quickly whip out the layout. Weeks later and still nothing and no further communications with a layout person with over 30 years worth of experience doing these boards.

I have never had a problem with this. I didn't care who you chose or how long he has been working in the field. The fact that he has "other paying gigs" puts him in the same situation I am in.

> In the midst of this, and our troubleshooting, we find from the documentation that there were two demodulation steps, not just the VSB demodulator that we had discussed and that you said was all that was necessary to demodulate the tapes that we have. When asked about this, you said that you were able to get video lines with your original VSB demod.
I had said that the tape we used required only the VSB demod step, which is true. Which tape we used is unclear. As you have found a fully demodulated tape, perhaps it is possible there are other tapes in baseband.

We were well aware of the two possible steps from the literature. Here is what the literature showed:

Note that the block diagrams show the 10 MHz coming down to a split between the Pre-Detection Tape Recorder and the FMFB block. As we had heard that there was the possibility different kinds of tapes (partials from sites that were recombined later, 10 MHz FM, demodulated etc), we decided to look at the signal with a spectrum analyzer. Nancy located one and we went to get it an these notes from my lab notebook of that time attest to:

Once we got setup I took these pictures with a film camera directly off the face of the spectrum analyzer:

Note the frequency of the marker in the upper right hand corner. 38.83 KHz is remarkably close to 38.75 KHz isn't it? And how can that be accomplished form a tape that is 10 MHz FM? But wait, there is more:

Here is another page from my notebook:

Note again the marker. It is at 311 KHz. That happens to be the video carrier and the arch of the spectrum is the video data itself. I was initially confused by this because according to the literature the carrier is supposed to be suppressed. Recent simulations using PSpice have revealed the "why" of this however.

Here are a couple more pictures from my notebook for you:

Does look like something I faked?

> This caused us about 3 weeks of intensive troubleshooting and effort before we finally figured out that, with the tape that you sent the picture of, that it was not possible that by only using your baseband VSB demodulator, that you would get video lines. I state again, not possible. You simply did not do what you said that you had done before in the early 90's, no possible way without the second FM demodulation step.

Well, basically you have just called me a liar. I take great exception to this. In an email that I sent to you that I previously quoted, I said:

Dennis,
I have found a picture that shows what I think is the first tape that we used on the LO data recovery but I haven't found the negatives yet. But there is some useful information.

Take a close look at that word "think". What does that word mean to you? To me it means that I was not sure of whether that tape in the picture was the one or not. The one sure thing was that tape drive was the one we used as I do not remember bring up any other one and the one you are working on now has not even been turned on until recently, at least as far as I can recall.

A possible explanation to this is (other than a working with a FM demodulated tape), is that the drive we were working with might have had an FMFB demodulator in the lower bay which the drive that you are working with does not. But then this is not news to you is it? It's not news because we discussed this issue over the phone on 9/12/08. Here is my email to you answering yours on that same day (the original is last with the reply first):

Sorry to hear that. How bad is it?

...and... can you confirm that it is a tape that has been demodulated from 10MHz down to baseband?
...and... are there other tapes of that format - assuming that one was demod from 10 MHz?

~ Mark ~

Dennis Ray Wingo wrote: Mark

We found the tape but you guys did not properly store it when you were done with it so it has degraded significantly.

Dennis

And on the same day this was a reply to your reply:

Well, other than using that other tape drive, I know of nothing.

~ Mark ~

Dennis Ray Wingo wrote: Mark

We have run the tape and it shows exactly what the other tapes show, which is a carrier at 10 MHz and the audio from the tape specifically has a calibration procedure from Woomera that talks about a 10 MHz carrier.

IS there ANYTHING that you did, that was different than what we are doing?

Dennis

Which brings up another issue:
You berate "us" for "...not properly store it when you were done with it so it has degraded significantly." Then it turns out that it was a cushioning material that each can has inside it that degraded. But the tape, which was inside a plastic bag and both of which was inside the can, was just fine as attested by you having played the tape.

> Here we are, nearing the end of November and still no schematic, still no concrete indication that you have done anything. When I asked you for a status this week you said that you would provide that on Friday. Here it is Friday and nothing.

You can also blame me for being too optimistic.

> What is it that you think qualifies you to have the level of credit that you seem to think that is your due?

20 years of effort on a par with, or exceeding that which was contributed by Nancy Evans is what.

> Performance is the only thing that matters.

And just what exactly was Nancy's performance?

Are you aware of the fact that I had stored these drives in a comparatively pristine environment for about 6 or 7 years? If we had met you then you would have come up to speed far sooner. Also, are you aware that I had the drives transfered to Nancy's location at my own expense? Also my wife and I helped Nancy to cover all the walls of the "chicken coop" with plastic sheeting to keep the dust out (according to Nancy). Little did I know that the doors would be left open. When I moved the drives to Nancy's we agreed to share on anything that might happen in the future. As I did not have the extra space that she did I took the spare heads and the known goon one and a bunch of documentation.

...And just out of curiosity, what is with this love feast between you and Nancy anyway. She was basically administrative. I found the first three drives and all the spare heads and the Ampex people (Leonard Group et all). Further, in an email to Nancy on 2/9/07 I pointed out that I wanted her to receive equal credit for her efforts. I also did the same in person. On 2/11/07 she replied in part:

I don't want an "in" on the project. If I can help in an advisory capacity,
I will be glad to do so; but I did my job as the "mother" of the planetary
data system to protect the data tapes, acquire and protect the only
equipment that can read them, and turn them over to someone who has the
funding, the connections, and links into the science community to digitize
the data. I dont want credit for doing this. Most of the people that I did
it for have passed on and credit means nothing to them.

I did my best to establish an "in" for you, and I think that was
successful. You will be able to perform your task and you will be well paid
for it. I am sure that there will be plenty of credit given to you for
accomplishing your task. I think it is appropriate for you to set up a
contract, not a MOU, with Wingo and company as to what you see as your
responsibilities to the total task, the wages you require, your rights, and
yes your expectations as to credit for the task. I think you should also
tell him where you want to do your task. He is looking for another site
that is convenient for you since my original place evaporated. I think that
he thinks that you live on this side of the world!!

Now that the Lunar Orbiter Data Set has been declared a National Treasure,
Dennis Wingo has spoken to me of plans to do a documentary on its salvage
and restoration, perhaps on the Discovery Channel. This will certainly
speak to the world of your part in the project.

What Malin did years ago, and what I did in response, still bothers me.
Although I still disrespect Malin, I feel that if he had the drives the
tapes might have been digitized long ago. Joe Boyce's comment that he would
see that this project was never funded as long as I was involved in it
certainly rang true. Many of our proposals were never responded to and he
single handedly put the kibosh on Clementine money. The best thing that I
can do for this project is to get out of it, and that is what I am going to
do.

Nancy

She told me several times that she had washed her hands of this project and wanted nothing more to do with it and that I could do whatever I wished with them. I again pointed out to her that she should share in anything that comes. She wasn't interested because she wanted the drives out of that are as she had other plans to use it in her vet business.

> If you want to be part of the further publicity on the project, then perform. I am already contracting with another entity in case that you do not come through. I have to do this as I have no confidence that we will get anything from you. Several weeks ago you said that you were ready to provide a schematic, all that you had to do was pick the real values.

As far as I knew there would be no place for me in upcoming activities after I developed the demod board. My issue was strictly centered around the events that took place on 11/13/09 and nothing else, which I made perfectly clear in my 3 emails to you.

My approach to the project:
Originally it appeared to that you had a funding / cash flow problem. This is why I have not billed you for anything to date. I really wanted the project to succeed. My job, as you know, was to reproduce the demod board. As all I have of the 1990 effort is a hand drawn schematics I decided that I need to reanalyze the entire design. I could have just committed the design to CAD and left it at that but I would be responsible for the result if it didn't work to expectations. Also, my desire to simulate the design was partly due to the need to familiarize myself with it and partly to make sure it ran as best as I could make it as I remember that we had some problems with the first go round. My notes show that Jack had suggested that we increase the Q of the filter to 50 or 100. I don't know if we ever did, but the values on the schematic and the simulations do not reflect this. Further, while simulating it, I found several errors in the schematic which I fixed. I also found that I had forgotten much of filter theory and had to do a refresher course. Thus I created a filter calculation spread sheet that allowed me to make quick calculations so I could perform "what if" scenarios. So I decided to analyze every aspect of it that I could. There was also the learning curve associated with LT Spice. I also wanted to document my efforts as I usually make a written report to my client to better justify my bill.

After you showed some concern about the time I was taking I backed off the report and the simulations and concentrated on trying to finalizing the design. Then this issue became even more contentious and I realized that whatever I did, if it didn't match or exceed expectations, you would come down on me like a ton of bricks. I therefore went back to full analysis and a report to justify everything I did in that design - which is where I am now.

Here is the LO simulation directory of circuits that I have done:

Here is a video simulation:

The simulated PWL single line is on top. The resultant is below.

Here is the complete design:

How I view the project and billing:
Though the contract indicated it is hourly, not to exceed 10K, I virtually never overrun a project. So I looked at this project in three parts:

1. Design simulate report, $5K
2. Manage layout, PCB fab, part orders and assembly, $2.5K
3. Test, calibrate and install on site, 2.5K

As the report, and thus the schematic is almost complete ( I will complete it in any case), I will be billing you for it whether you intend to keep me on or not.

> Well I could do that in a couple of days. I have been doing designs for a long time and know the drill and what it takes to do. Prove me wrong, and then you will get your day in the sun with us on this project. I think that you see the level of response that we have been able to generate from this but I am not waiting on you anymore to perform. If my other engineering team that we have contracted to do this provides me with a working design (including the FM demodulator) as soon as they say that they can, then we have no further reason to work with you on this at all.

I was not contracted to do the FM demod as you may recall. I have looked into it and have a design that uses a PLL, but it needs to be simulated to assure it's complete functionality.

> I don't like to be this way but we could have had a much better event if you had come through as you promised that you could do.

Incredible. Now you are blaming me for the event not being up to what you think it should have been (even though the tapes were in FM and not base band as thought - oh, thats right, my fault again), as if the signature picture of entire project was not enough. I must admit you were lucky to have found that tape. If we had found it, things would have been very different.

Well, let me add up the score here:
First you yell at me, then you swear at me, then you blame me for having to hire security (which never happened), then you blame me for having funding withdrawn, then you call me a liar, then you blame me for not having the event you thought you should have. You are really racking up the points here Dennis.

> Business is business and when you don't perform, you don't get any of the rewards that comes from performance.
The only reward I expected was the same as Nancy, no more, no less, and I didn't even come close.

The interesting thing in my mind is if Nancy's position and mine were reversed, I would have insisted she be included as I considered her an equal in all of this. I don't understand why she didn't.

> The quality of your response to this will determine what we do next.

The "quality" of my response? Does all of this, this tome, qualify?

Well I wasted about 4 hours on this (not to mention the week when I went up to Ames), so I'll sign off for now and get back to it.
>
~ Mark Nelson ~

Dennis,
Well, the termination is interesting, though not entirely unexpected. What was unexpected was your comments concerning the alleged "lies" that were in my email to Dr Worden. I must I am yet again totally mystified at your reaction as I only recanted that which happened in what I consider to be rather mild tones, especially considering what happened. Would you mind commenting on just what it was that I said that were "lies" in your opinion? To aid you in informing me as to what those lies were, I am providing a copy of the email, in its entirety, that I sent to Dr. Worden via his sectary Linda Hillman on 11/20/08. Please pay close attention to the section that I highlighted in red. For the record:

Dr. Worden,
Please excuse me for contacting you in this manner but recent events compel me to do so.

One week ago there was a news conference at Ames concerning the rediscovery of the "lost" Lunar Orbiter data tapes as I am sure you recall. In attendance were yourself, Gregg Schmidt, Dennis Wingo, Charles Byrne and Nancy Evans. I was also invited to the conference because I had been involved with the Lunar Orbiter data recovery effort, along with Nancy Evans, from about 1988 to the present. However my reception was anything but what one would expect. I wrote of my concerns to Dennis on 11/14/08, then again on 11/17/08 and the last time on 11/19/08 asking him for his side of the story. I am still waiting for his reply. Here is what I wrote:

Dennis,
Well I made it back to my home in Arizona after a 17 hour, two day drive. During that time I had a chance to think about things and a question popped up that I wonder if you would mind answering. However, in order to make my question clear I will need to provide some background.

Back in about 1988 Nancy and I began working on the Lunar Orbiter data recovery project. This came about because Nancy heard about the discovery of the only remaining set of Lunar Orbiter data tapes and mentioned it to me. I thought it would be a great project to digitize this date set and make it available to the public in general. This set me on a task of finding all documentation concerning Lunar Orbiter and what kind of recorder created the tapes. I contacted in excess of 165 people and companies and researched hundreds of technical documents in an effort to understand the data, data format and hardware needed to read the tapes. I located the first three drives which were at Egland AFB, complete with the documentation that you now have. In addition, I wrote documents for support of a possible book about this project by Kevin Kelley, wrote to Dr. Krupp of the Griffith Observatory for support, wrote several proposals for proof of concept via Mike Malin and developed the VSB de-compressor hardware for the drives. The vast majority of this was done at my own expense.

When it became apparent that the drives might be taken from us, we moved them to a storage place that a friend of mine had and there they sat for the next 6 or 7 years. After my friend could no longer provide the storage place, we moved them to Nancy's "garage", at my expense. There they sat until you found out about them.

Nancy's roll in all of this was basically administrative. She lent credibility to the project and was a liaison to JPL, Caltech and NASA. This is what allowed me access to the tapes in the first place. She had virtually no roll in technical issues, but she did help to write the proposals to NASA which were rejected for various reasons. In any event, I always considered her involvement to be equal to mine and mine to hers, as we were partners in this venture as I did not, and do not "keep score". When you came on the scene Nancy wanted to divest herself of everything having to do with the drives and concentrate on her veterinarian business as she stated in an email to me. However I still maintained that she was a half owner in the drives and should share in whatever happened.

My involvement with this project was based on the desire to see the culmination of a great deal of work on a really interesting project and via that project, contribute a little to science and perhaps get a little credit for my work.

On 10/23/08 you emailed me and said:

We are having a press conference on the 13th of November to show the world our first image. I would like to get Nancy and you your recognition for your efforts on the project. NASA has offered to fly Nancy up here and while I can't promise you the same, we would like to have you here to be recognized for all the work that you did to keep this project alive and save the drives for posterity.

I agreed to come up as this seemed to the culmination of all the work that Nancy and I have done over those many years.

You had indicated that you might not be able to pay me for the trip (implying that money was tight), and I agreed that I would travel at my own expense. And so I traveled from my home for two days, 740 miles to Ames to receive the promised recognition. On November 14, 2008 I arrived on site at 10:00 AM as you requested. As time passed, I noticed that Nancy was introduced to various people, then there was an interview for television. I assumed that I might have a spot later, but it didn't happen nor did the introductions Time passes and Nancy was introduced to more dignitaries. I wasn't. Next we go to the auditorium where Nancy had two separate round table discussions. I wasn't invited to join. At the end of the last discussion I was invited to stand from my seat in the audience for maybe five whole seconds of recognition.

While talking to Nancy after the event I found that her round trip flight and living expenses were paid for, while I had to pay about $450.00 for myself. My lodging was to be reserved at the Ames Lodge, but it wasn't. I was lucky to get a room for one night, for which I paid. I was later also surprised to find that you had invited Nancy to stay another day to "just BS and stuff", an event that I was obviously not invited to.

During my 17 hour, 2 day return trip to my home I had time to think, as I had said. As you knew of the extent of my involvement in this project, I could not come up with a reason why I was not treated in an equal manner as Nancy. I hold nothing against Nancy as she worked hard on this project and I always considered her a partner. But I ask you, why was I given so little recognition when I contributed as much or more?

Just curious.

11/28/08 8:37

Dennis Ray Wingo wrote:
> Mark
>
> Due to your continuing lack of providing the project with a working schematic, simulation, net list, and parts description, (almost five months and counting) after repeated requests and entreaties and several deadlines (which was the prerequisite for your readmission to the project in any capacity after you summarily quit), as well as our discovery that your demodulator design, even if delivered would not demodulate the tapes as you have claimed it would, I regretfully inform you that your participation is terminated.
>
> Your letter to Dr. Worden containing outright lies concerning our interactions and my initial response to your complaints related to your participation in the press event has created an atmosphere wherein it is impossible that we can have a fruitful interaction in the future.
>
> Dennis Wingo
> LOIRP Program Manager

Dennis,
Well, the termination is interesting, though not entirely unexpected. What was unexpected was your comments concerning the alleged "lies" that were in my email to Dr Worden. I must I am yet again totally mystified at your reaction as I only recanted that which happened in what I consider to be rather mild tones, especially considering what happened. Would you mind commenting on just what it was that I said that were "lies" in your opinion? To aid you in informing me as to what those lies were, I am providing a copy of the email, in its entirety, that I sent to Dr. Worden via his sectary Linda Hillman on 11/20/08. Please pay close attention to the section that I highlighted in red. For the record.

Dr. Worden,
Please excuse me for contacting you in this manner but recent events compel me to do so.

One week ago there was a news conference at Ames concerning the rediscovery of the "lost" Lunar Orbiter data tapes as I am sure you recall. In attendance were yourself, Gregg Schmidt, Dennis Wingo, Charles Byrne and Nancy Evans. I was also invited to the conference because I had been involved with the Lunar Orbiter data recovery effort, along with Nancy Evans, from about 1988 to the present. However my reception was anything but what one would expect. I wrote of my concerns to Dennis on 11/14/08, then again on 11/17/08 and the last time on 11/19/08 asking him for his side of the story. I am still waiting for his reply. Here is what I wrote:

Dennis,
Well I made it back to my home in Arizona after a 17 hour, two day drive. During that time I had a chance to think about things and a question popped up that I wonder if you would mind answering. However, in order to make my question clear I will need to provide some background.

Back in about 1988 Nancy and I began working on the Lunar Orbiter data recovery project. This came about because Nancy heard about the discovery of the only remaining set of Lunar Orbiter data tapes and mentioned it to me. I thought it would be a great project to digitize this date set and make it available to the public in general. This set me on a task of finding all documentation concerning Lunar Orbiter and what kind of recorder created the tapes. I contacted in excess of 165 people and companies and researched hundreds of technical documents in an effort to understand the data, data format and hardware needed to read the tapes. I located the first three drives which were at Egland AFB, complete with the documentation that you now have. In addition, I wrote documents for support of a possible book about this project by Kevin Kelley, wrote to Dr. Krupp of the Griffith Observatory for support, wrote several proposals for proof of concept via Mike Malin and developed the VSB de-compressor hardware for the drives. The vast majority of this was done at my own expense.

When it became apparent that the drives might be taken from us, we moved them to a storage place that a friend of mine had and there they sat for the next 6 or 7 years. After my friend could no longer provide the storage place, we moved them to Nancy's "garage", at my expense. There they sat until you found out about them.

Nancy's roll in all of this was basically administrative. She lent credibility to the project and was a liaison to JPL, Caltech and NASA. This is what allowed me access to the tapes in the first place. She had virtually no roll in technical issues, but she did help to write the proposals to NASA which were rejected for various reasons. In any event, I always considered her involvement to be equal to mine and mine to hers, as we were partners in this venture as I did not, and do not "keep score". When you came on the scene Nancy wanted to divest herself of everything having to do with the drives and concentrate on her veterinarian business as she stated in an email to me. However I still maintained that she was a half owner in the drives and should share in whatever happened.

My involvement with this project was based on the desire to see the culmination of a great deal of work on a really interesting project and via that project, contribute a little to science and perhaps get a little credit for my work.

On 10/23/08 you emailed me and said:

We are having a press conference on the 13th of November to show the world our first image. I would like to get Nancy and you your recognition for your efforts on the project. NASA has offered to fly Nancy up here and while I can't promise you the same, we would like to have you here to be recognized for all the work that you did to keep this project alive and save the drives for posterity.

I agreed to come up as this seemed to the culmination of all the work that Nancy and I have done over those many years.

You had indicated that you might not be able to pay me for the trip (implying that money was tight), and I agreed that I would travel at my own expense. And so I traveled from my home for two days, 740 miles to Ames to receive the promised recognition. On November 14, 2008 I arrived on site at 10:00 AM as you requested. As time passed, I noticed that Nancy was introduced to various people, then there was an interview for television. I assumed that I might have a spot later, but it didn't happen nor did the introductions Time passes and Nancy was introduced to more dignitaries. I wasn't. Next we go to the auditorium where Nancy had two separate round table discussions. I wasn't invited to join. At the end of the last discussion I was invited to stand from my seat in the audience for maybe five whole seconds of recognition.

While talking to Nancy after the event I found that her round trip flight and living expenses were paid for, while I had to pay about $450.00 for myself. My lodging was to be reserved at the Ames Lodge, but it wasn't. I was lucky to get a room for one night, for which I paid. I was later also surprised to find that you had invited Nancy to stay another day to "just BS and stuff", an event that I was obviously not invited to.

During my 17 hour, 2 day return trip to my home I had time to think, as I had said. As you knew of the extent of my involvement in this project, I could not come up with a reason why I was not treated in an equal manner as Nancy. I hold nothing against Nancy as she worked hard on this project and I always considered her a partner. But I ask you, why was I given so little recognition when I contributed as much or more?

Just curious.

~ Mark Nelson ~

Normally I do not seek much attention nor am I particularly concerned as to who gets credits, so to that end I am happy that Nancy received all the attention that she did. Though she had next to nothing to do with the technology aspect, and very little to do with finding and acquiring the tape drives, nor did she have anything to do with researching what amounts to my four file drawers of documentation on the Lunar Orbiter project, her contacts allowed us access to the Lunar Orbiter tapes at JPL among other things. Thus Nancy therefore added credibility to the project that I, as a consultant (not from Caltech as stated in some news articles), would not have been able to do. None the less I considered Nancy to be an equal partner in this project.

I am also happy that Dennis Wingo received the credit and exposure that he did. He resurrected a project that, if he had not contacted me when he did, would have been gone forever as Nancy had told me that that she had to get rid of the drives in her garage because she needed that space for her vet business and I had no place for them either. Dennis's contacts and efforts have made our 20 year effort a reality.

So you may ask, why would I have gone to all that time, trouble and personal expense? Basically it is this:
I have always liked Science and Technology and would have liked to have discovered something new, or provided some contribution to the body of scientific knowledge. Lunar Orbiter was my chance, but that is gone now, at least as far as I can see. I would have been happy to have been acknowledged at the same level that Nancy was and that would have been the end of it. But there was even more. Back at the McDonalds site after the conference, Nancy was awarded a Lunar Orbiter I medal by Keith Cowling which was found on eBay. If I had been in any way included in any of the proceedings of the day on any kind of equal basis, this would not have mattered to me and I would have been happy to see her get that recognition. But considering the day's events, this was just adding insult to injury.

As for my association with the current project;
I have a small contract with Dennis's company Skycorp. My first trip to Ames was to be paid for by Skycorp, but I have not charged them as I understood that there was a funding / cash flow problem and I wanted all efforts focused on the project. I had assumed the same was true for not funding my trip to Ames on the 13th. This also applies for the number of hours I have put in which were above and beyond the requirements of the project, for which I have not billed either. But that is all about to change. Most of my clients become long time friends, some for as long as 15 years. But I don't see that happening in this case. It will be "just business" from here on.

So why did Dennis toss 20 years of off and on efforts on my part? I have no idea. He was well aware of my involvement with the project, and given that, I can only assume that it was done on purpose, or at best, with callous disregard. The only way I could have been more insulted is if I had made the journey by invitation, and not been given even the small recognition that I did receive. Because of his actions I am personally and deeply offended, as you might already have surmised.

I present this information to you so that you might have the whole story of Lunar Orbiter data recovery project. I wish the project success in the future, irregardless on my involvement.

Thanks for your time.

~ Mark Nelson ~

With the exception of the red highlight, the above is exactly what I sent to Dr. Worden. I have read it and reread it and I cannot find a single instance where I "lied" to him about you. However, I could point out where you have often insinuated that I lied even in light of facts that I submitted to you that were to the contrary, (which were never acknowledged by you I might add).

Think of this Dennis, if I did not have those pictures in that notebook, I would have had no defense and I would have to tolerate your insistence that I lied about how we demodulated those tapes. This is born out by your consistent personal attacks on me, none of which were returned by the way. Normally a manager tries to solve a problem by finding a solution, rather than berating their work force.

I invite your reply.

By the way, I will be billing you for the first trip up there and work to date.

~ Mark Nelson ~

--
On November 29, 2008 at 11:33AM Dennis replies:

Mark

The very act of writing to Dr. Worden and complaining to him that you did not get a medal, that Keith bought for about $5 bucks on ebay, has illustrated to all concerned the lack of professionalism that you have exhibited. This has not endeared you to NASA or Dr. Worden (who has known me for almost 20 years) but has illustrated you as a source of irritation, not as a member of a team working toward a common positive goal. I know exactly what you wrote Dr. Worden as I have a copy of it. I have responded to your note about credit, provided you with examples of articles that we wrote that did include you, explained why the press liked Nancy's angle more than yours, and we did include you in the activities concomitant with your contributions and yet you felt that you had to write this to Dr. Worden. You petulantly quit the project when castigated, then when you agreed to the terms of your return, you still have not delivered what you promised. This has forced us to contract with other parties to do the work that you were supposed to do that you stated that you had done before.

All that we have asked of you is to deliver on what you promised and when pressed, you send something that cannot be evaluated as to whether or not you have done anything. This is professional?

No delivery after five months. You even stated that you did not think that we could get the machine running in this time, but we did, and it is your lack of contribution that has kept the project from doing even better than it has. That is the bottom line.

If you had delivered, all would have been different.

Dennis

===============

Dennis,
Comments below:

11/29/08 2:34 PM Dennis Ray Wingo wrote:
> Mark
>
> The very act of writing to Dr. Worden and complaining to him that you did not get a medal, that Keith bought for about $5 bucks on ebay, has illustrated to all concerned the lack of professionalism that you have exhibited.

Up to now I have not resorted to personal attacks on you, but as your attacks on me are unfair, untrue, distorted and unrelenting, I will no longer be so considerate.

For the record:
"Not getting a medal" was not my complaint. Why is it that you seem unable to recant an event accurately? My complaint was that I was almost totally ignored during the 11/13/08 event after making a 17 hour 2 day trip to get there (with another 17 hour 2 day trip to come back), at a cost of about $450.00 for which I didn't even get an introduction to the dignitaries, much less any news media exposure on anything near a par with Nancy. I expected no more than Nancy ,as I have said numerous times before.

To put the "medal" issue and the point of my emails to you and Dr. Worden into perspective, which is something you seem unable to do, here is EXACTLY what I said in the email to you and Dr. Worden:

You had indicated that you might not be able to pay me for the trip (implying that money was tight), and I agreed that I would travel at my own expense. And so I traveled from my home for two days, 740 miles to Ames to receive the promised recognition. On November 13, 2008 I arrived on site at 10:00 AM as you requested. As time passed, I noticed that Nancy was introduced to various people, then there was an interview for television. I assumed that I might have a spot later, but it didn't happen nor did the introductions Time passes and Nancy was introduced to more dignitaries. I wasn't. Next we go to the auditorium where Nancy had two separate round table discussions. I wasn't invited to join. At the end of the last discussion I was invited to stand from my seat in the audience for maybe five whole seconds of recognition.

While talking to Nancy after the event I found that her round trip flight and living expenses were paid for, while I had to pay about $450.00 for myself. My lodging was to be reserved at the Ames Lodge, but it wasn't. I was lucky to get a room for one night, for which I paid. I was later also surprised to find that you had invited Nancy to stay another day to "just BS and stuff", an event that I was obviously not invited to.

And to Dr. Worden I added:

I am also happy that Dennis Wingo received the credit and exposure that he did. He resurrected a project that, if he had not contacted me when he did, would have been gone forever as Nancy had told me that that she had to get rid of the drives in her garage because she needed that space for her vet business and I had no place for them either. Dennis's contacts and efforts have made our 20 year effort a reality.

So you may ask, why would I have gone to all that time, trouble and personal expense? Basically it is this:
I have always liked Science and Technology and would have liked to have discovered something new, or provided some contribution to the body of scientific knowledge. Lunar Orbiter was my chance, but that is gone now, at least as far as I can see. I would have been happy to have been acknowledged at the same level that Nancy was and that would have been the end of it. But there was even more. Back at the McDonalds site after the conference, Nancy was awarded a Lunar Orbiter I medal by Keith Cowling which was found on eBay. If I had been in any way included in any of the proceedings of the day on any kind of equal basis, this would not have mattered to me and I would have been happy to see her get that recognition. But considering the day's events, this was just adding insult to injury.

Since you seem totally unable to recant an event in any way that can be considered accurate, fair or balanced, I have taken time to high light the salient point above. Please be so kind as to read it over, very carefully, then reread what you said here:

The very act of writing to Dr. Worden and complaining to him that you did not get a medal, that Keith bought for about $5 bucks on ebay, has illustrated to all concerned the lack of professionalism that you have exhibited.

This example, which is just one of many that I have, shows how petty one person can be. This is not what I said, but it was clearly stated this way, by you, to make me look as bad as possible because you don't have a leg to stand on. It is my opinion that the news conference was your doing. You arranged the entire thing. Why you chose to leave me out is a mystery to me. If it were an oversight, and it might have been, then a real professional would have stepped up to the plate and made amends. But you didn't. Instead you attacked me personally and brought up numerous unrelated issues which you then tried to justify by distorting the facts, like the example I just gave above.

> This has not endeared you to NASA or Dr. Worden (who has known me for almost 20 years) but has illustrated you as a source of irritation, not as a member of a team working toward a common positive goal. I know exactly what you wrote Dr. Worden as I have a copy of it.

I am sorry to hear that Dr. Worden is of this opinion, or so you say. According to my sources he is a very open and fair person. However, as I am now in possession of numerous examples of how you have distorted the facts (re. my comment above), I would not be surprised to find that you have related this story to Dr. Worden in such a manner that it would be totally unrecognizable by those who are (or were) involved.

> I have responded to your note about credit, provided you with examples of articles that we wrote that did include you, explained why the press liked Nancy's angle more than yours, and we did include you in the activities concomitant with your contributions and yet you felt that you had to write this to Dr. Worden.

The letter (email) to Dr. Worden was after 3 emails to you concerning this issue to which you did not reply. The first email was on 11/14/08. The second was on 11/17/08 and the third was on 11/19/08. Only after no reply from you, on 11/20/08 I then sent that email to Dr. Worden to which you refer. That's 6 days. On the seventh day (11/21/08), you responded. Could my email to Dr Worden have been a catalyst? Also isn't it interesting to note that again you distort the facts by insinuating that I wrote to Dr. Worden after you "...responded to my note about credit," so that it makes it look like I did this to spite you? I therefore hesitate to point out that I had heard nothing form you for 7 days in response to my three emails to you requesting comments on the news release issue.

As to why "the press liked Nancy's angle more than yours":
On 11/24/08 you said:

Mark

I did what I could. Frankly the media liked the little old lady angle better than the middle aged engineer angle. I included you in the pictures, got you to sign the drive, specifically made sure that you were in the group pictures, and on and on and on.

Dennis

Given that even simple issues have not be repeated accurately, I must call the veracity of the above into question. I am fairly convinced that you had set up everything and no doubt did so on your own terms.

> You petulantly
...An interesting word that you seem to like to use. I take the meaning to be "easy to anger or upset". Let's review the facts, all of which I have stated several times before:

I'm invited to a news conference at my own expense. I waste a total of 5 days and generate an expense of something like $450.00, which I gladly did because this was to be recognition for all of our efforts, or so I was led to believe. I then write a relatively mild email to you requesting, not demanding, something of an explanation. For this I am labeled as being "petulant". Given your reaction to events, yelling at me via email (email in all caps is considered yelling don't you know?), swearing at me and implying very strongly (if not outright stating) that I am a liar, tells me that the label "petulant" rightfully belongs to you and not to me.
> quit the project when castigated, then when you agreed to the terms of your return, you still have not delivered what you promised. This has forced us to contract with other parties to do the work that you were supposed to do that you stated that you had done before.
We have gone over this before and you have no case.

> All that we have asked of you is to deliver on what you promised and when pressed, you send something that cannot be evaluated as to whether or not you have done anything. This is professional?
Among a swarm of personal attacks, you did request for delivery of the schematics, for which I was late, of which I explained previously, which is the only valid complaint you have against me.

> No delivery after five months. You even stated that you did not think that we could get the machine running in this time, but we did,
What in the world does that have to with anything? It was an opinion. How does that even relate to this?

> and it is your lack of contribution that has kept the project from doing even better than it has. That is the bottom line.
I think you might look to the management style to which you ascribe for a better answer.
>
> If you had delivered, all would have been different.
Understanding as I do now, that I would have been given NO quarter whatever for any mistake, misjudgment or for not remembering details of events that took place 20 years ago, I seriously doubt that what you have just said would be true. This is so because if I defend myself (and I will, to the ends of the Earth if I have too), regarding any half truth, insinuation or outright lie that is said about me, my work or my intentions, you will take it personally and you will then feel that you must "castigate" the offending person by ad hominem attacks and support those attacks by distorting the truth. Is this the hallmark of a professional? I think not. For me, this is a first.

Though still alive in third world countries (and China and Japan to some degree), the days when a supervisor can "castigate" a worker went out somewhere around the 1940's or so. If you or anyone else has a beef with me, then state your case in a civil and understandable manner and I will respond in kind. If you continually insist on making ad hominem attacks and distorting the facts, I will defend myself in kind. However, if I am wrong and you make your case, I will admit it and apologize if the situation warrants it. Don't twist the story around to something that can't even be recognized by the person who first wrote it just so you can make your position superior. And further, try not to constantly insinuate deceit and subversion on my part regarding events that happened 20 years ago. When it is found out how we got the spectrum analyzer pictures that we did, either because of an FM demodulator built into one of the tape drives, or be it a baseband demodulated tape (or something else), then I would expect an apology from a responsible and professional manager. However in this case, when it is found out, assuming it ever will be, I am absolutely certain that I will never hear about it and consequently there will be no apology from this presumed "responsible" and "professional" manager.

In summary, I will defend every untrue and misleading comment made about me by you, or anyone else, whenever and where ever they may occur. And may I say that in my entire career only you have succeeded being the first to:

* Yell at me
* Swear at me
* Blame me for having to hire security (which never happened)
* Blame me for having funding withdrawn (which has yet to be proven)
* Call me a liar
* Blame me for not having the event you thought you should have
* Call me petulant (which is something of a minor pejorative)
* Fire me
* Cause me to write such a lengthy defense of my position

There are probably more, but I think I have made my point.

Think of it Dennis! You are a first with me in 9 different categories.

I invite your reply.

Have a nice day.

~ Mark Nelson ~